Monthly Archives: August 2010

Why is this blog entitled Living in a madhouse? Because I live in a country dominated by the denial of reality that is modern liberal internationalism, a political ideology whose tenets have become enshrined in the creed we call political correctness. The result is a world turned upside down where black is called white and white black.

Political correctness requires its adherents to subscribe to beliefs which are at direct variance with the way human beings naturally behave. It contends that all humans are, in some mysterious and undefined way, equal. It says that there are no important innate mental or behavioural differences between men and women. It attributes any differences in behaviour between human beings to nurture. It claims that race is no more than a social construct. It holds that the idea of nations is simply outmoded tribalism. It requires nation states to open their borders to trade and mass immigration regardless of the economic and societal consequences and the affront given to man’s innately tribal nature.

Most absurdly and perniciously, it asks its disciples to believe that discrimination of any sort between people is an absolute wrong despite the fact that human beings, like every other organism, have to discriminate simply to survive because to make any choice is to discriminate.

Back in the real world homo sapiens behaves from choice as it has always done; naturally forming groups from the small band to the modern nation state; displaying a desire to defend their territory against invasion by aliens; wanting to have their economy protected and generally wishing that their government will defend their group interests.

If political correctness was simply an ideology which was adopted by those without power or influence it would be of no consequence. Sadly, for the Western world, it has become the dominant political creed of their political elites, elites who particularly in the USA and Britain have entrenched the tenets of political correctness in their societies through laws penalising what are deemed “hate crimes” and controlling human interaction and by the creation of a mentality in those controlling politics, public service institutions, educational establishments and private that the only way to remain secure in their positions and to continue to advance in their careers is to be religiously politically correct themselves and to punish anyone in a subordinate position who is deemed to have committed a pc “crime”. This mentality is fed by the eagerness of the mainstream media to engage in witch hunts against anyone accused of a pc “crime”.

Such behaviour by an elite naturally creates a climate of fear amongst the wider population. They also understand that is dangerous to be anything other than politically correct and consequently self-censor themselves. It is routine now for any white native Briton to preface any statement which is in any way less than unreservedly celebratory of “diversity” with “I’m not a racist but….”

But all is not equal in a politically correct world. Despite the watchword of equality which lies at the heart of political correctness, in practice some parts of the population are much more at risk than others. The groups of which the politically correct approve – ethnic/racial minorities, women and homosexuals – are to various degrees protected, while the one group which the politically correct do not wish to protect, namely, white heterosexual males, is at risk in all circumstances when in a dispute with a member of an ethnic minority, a woman or a homosexual.

But there is also a hierarchy of fear and risk within the politically correct approved groups. For example, being a black or Asian woman will trump being a white woman in any dispute between a white woman and a black or Asian woman. Similarly, a black heterosexual man will trump a white homosexual.

Political correctness is especially pernicious because it is a totalitarian creed, which both brooks no contrary opinion and touches every aspect of life through its central tenet of no discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual inclination. Far from being paragons of moral light and reason, the adherents of political correctness are by definition bigots for they brook no opinion but their own. Let us call them what they are liberal bigots.

The application of political correctness takes the form of a soft totalitarianism as yet for people are not routinely jailed or killed, but the penalties for being convicted of a politically correct “crime” are severe enough, routinely resulting in the loss of employment, social ostracism and a barrage of media abuse. But things are inexorably sliding towards an ever more restrictive and punitive state with, for example, Britain having a law which makes any crime deemed to have been committed from a racial motive deserving of a heavier penalty than if it was committed from some other motive.

The defining characteristic of the modern liberal is hypocrisy. They preach the gospel of non-discrimination but practice it ruthlessly against those of whom they disapprove. They exalt the value of diversity yet take very good care to avoid living amongst it. They are also imperialist at heart. Instead of conquering lands the old fashioned way by force, they intend to do it by showing the benighted natives of less fortunate lands the “superiority” of their own liberal internationalist creed so that the benighted natives will turn into replicas of themselves. Sadly for the modern liberal the benighted natives don’t see it this way.

The consequence of the fantasy world which the modern liberal attempts to inflict upon their countries is that the West constantly weakens itself through a failure to protect its own interests, primarily by allowing mass immigration and removing trade barriers, while the rest of the world – especially China and India – remains wholly or largely untainted by political correctness and wisely prevents mass immigration and protects its own economies. The wilful shift of economic power from the West to China and India is the modern equivalent of “selling guns to the injuns”.

Because the world sought by the liberal internationalist is a directly at odds with human nature, the political elite who subscribe to the creed have become utterly divorced from what their electorates want and need. Because of this their electorates have become increasingly disillusioned with the mainstream political process because they believe quite rightly that all the parties capable of forming a government are essentially in agreement on all the major political issues. This disillusionment may explain the recent hung parliaments in the UK and Australia, countries which almost invariably since 1945 have returned a clear victory for a single party at general elections.

What do Western electorates want? I think an article published in Right Now! Magazine in 2005 probably comes close. Consequently, I end this first blog by reproducing it.

What the British people want from their politicians

Robert Henderson

Most of the British electorate is more than ordinarily disgruntled with politics. The problem which faces them is that they want British politics to be about something which is not currently on offer from any party with a chance of forming a government, or of even obtaining a parliamentary seat. They seek what these days counts as rightist action when it comes to matters such as preserving nationhood, immigration, race and political correctness, but traditional leftist policies on items such as social welfare, the NHS and the economy (has anyone ever met someone in favour of free markets and free trade who has actually lost his job because of them?).

But the electorate’s difficulty is not simply their inability to find a single party to fulfil all or even most of their political desires. They cannot find a party to satisfy any of them, for all the mainstream parties now carol from the same internationalist, globalist, supranational, pro-Eu, pc songsheet. The electorate finds they may have any economic programme provided it is globalism, a relationship with the EU provided it is membership and public services only if they increasingly include private capital and provision.

The only difference between the major parties is one of nuance. Nowhere is this political uniformity seen more obviously than in theLabour and Tory approaches to immigration. Labour has adopted a literally mad policy of “no obvious limit to immigration”. The Tories claim to be “tough” on immigration, but then agree to accept as legal immigrants more than 100,000 incomers a year from outside the EU plus any number of migrants from within the EU. There is a difference, but it is less or more of the same. Worse, in practice there would probably be no meaningful difference to the numbers coming, by one

means or another, whoever is in power. The truth is that while we remain part of the EU and tied by international treaties on asylum and human rights, nothing meaningful can be done for purely practical reasons – almost all the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers come via EU countries. But even if there was, for whom would the person who wants no further mass immigration vote? No one is the answer.

A manifesto to satisfy the public

So what manifesto would appeal to most electors? How about this:

We promise:

– To always put Britain’s interests first. This will entail the adoption of an unaggressive nationalist ethic in place of the currently dominant internationalist ideology.

– The reinstatement of British sovereignty by withdrawal from the EU and the repudiation of all treaties which circumscribe the primacy of Parliament.

– That future treaties will only come into force when voted for by a majority in both Houses of Parliament and that any treaty should be subject to repudiation by Parliament at any time.

– A reduction in the power of Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular and an increase in the power of parliament. This will be achieved by abolishing the Royal Prerogative, abolishing the party whip and the removal of the vast powers of patronage available to government and the prime minister.

– That the country will only go to war on a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

– An end to mass immigration by any means, including asylum, work permits and family reunion.

– An end to all officially-sponsored political correctness.

– The promotion of British history and culture in our schools and by all publicly-funded bodies.

– The repeal of all laws which give by intent or in practice a privileged position to any group which is less than the entire population of the country, for example the Race Relations Act.

– The repeal of all laws which attempt to interfere with the personal life and responsibility of the individual. Citizens will not be instructed what to eat, how to exercise, not to smoke or drink or be banned from pursuits such as fox-hunting which harm no one else.

– A formal recognition that a British citizen has rights and obligations not available to the foreigner, for example, the benefits of the welfare state will be made available only to born and bred Britons.

– Policing which is directed towards three ends, maintaining order, catching criminals and providing support and aid to the public in moments of threat or distress. The police will leave their cars and go on to the beat and there will be an assumption that the interests and safety of the public come before the interests and safety of police officers.

– A justice system which guards the interests of the accused by protecting essential rights of the defendant such as jury trial and the right to silence, whilst preventing cases collapsing through technical procedural errors or the unreasonable refusal of admittance of evidence and a cleaning up of the scandal of so-called expert witness evidence.

– An absolute right to self-defence when attacked. The public will be encouraged to defend themselves and their property.

– Prison sentences that are served in full, ie, the end of remission and other forms of early release.

– A general economic policy which steers a middle way between protectionism and free trade, with protection given to vital and strategically important industries such as agriculture, energy, and steel and free trade in anything which is not a necessity.

– A school system which ensures that every child leaves school with at least a firm grasp of the three Rs and a school exam system which is based solely on a final exam. This will remove the opportunity to cheat by pupils and teachers. The standards of the exams will be based on those of forty years ago.

– To restore credibility to our university system the taxpayer will fund scholarships for 20 per cent of school-leavers. These will pay for all fees and provide a grant sufficient to live on during term time. Anyone not in receipt of a scholarship will have to pay the full fees and support themselves or take a degree in their spare time. The scholarships will be concentrated on the best universities. The other universities will be closed. This will ensure that the cost is no more than the current funding and the remaining universities can be adequately funded.

– A clear distinction in our policies between the functions of the state and the functions of private business, charities and other non-governmental bodies. The state will provide necessary public services, business will be allowed to concentrate on its business and not be asked to be an arm of government and charities will be entirely independent bodies and will no longer receive public money.

– A repudiation of further privatisation for its own sake and a commitment to the direct public provision of all essential services such as medical treatment. We recognise that the electorate overwhelmingly want the NHS, decent state pensions, good state funded education for their children and state intervention where necessary to ensure necessities such as affordable housing. This promise is made to both reassure the public of continued future provision and to ensure that the extent of any public spending is unambiguous, something which is not the case where funding channels such as PFI are used.

– A commitment to putting the family first, which will include policies that recognise the best childcare is that given by the parents and that parents must be allowed to exercise discipline over their children. This will be given force by a law making clear that parents have an absolute right to custody of and authority over their children unless the parents can be shown to be engaging in serious criminal acts against their children.

– Defence forces designed solely to defend Britain and not the New World Order.

– A Parliament for England to square the Devolution circle. The English comprise around 80 per cent of the population of the UK, yet they alone of all the historic peoples are Britain are denied the right to govern themselves. This is both unreasonable and politically unsustainable in the long-run.

– A reduction to the English level of Treasury funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will save approximately £10 billion [RH now £15 billion] because the Celts receive overall approximately £1,000 per head [RH now £1,500 per head] per annum more than the English.

– An end to Foreign Aid. This will save approximately œ5 billion.

– A written constitution to ensure that future governments cannot abuse their power. This will be predicated on (1) the fact that we are free society, (2) the belief that in a free and democratic society that the individual can be trusted to take responsibility for their actions and to behave responsibly and (3) that politicians are the servants not the masters of those who elect them. It will guarantee those things necessary to a free society, including an absolute right to free expression, jury trial for any offence carrying a sentence of more than one year, place citizens in a privileged position over foreigners and set the interests and safety of the country and its citizens above the interests and safety of any other country or people.

Those are the things which I think most of the electorate could embrace, at least in large part. There are also other issues which the public might well be brought to support if there was proper public debate and a serious political party supporting them such as the ownership and bearing of weapons and the legalisation of drugs.

The positive thing about such an agenda is that either Labour or the Tories could comfortable support it within the context of their history.

Until Blair perverted its purpose, the Labour Party had been in practice (and often in theory – think Ernie Bevin), staunchly nationalist, not least because the unions were staunchly protective of their members’ interests and resistant to both mass immigration (because it reduced wages) and free trade (because it exported jobs and reduced wages).

For the Tories, the Thatcherite philosophy is as much an aberration as the Blairite de-socialisation of Labour. The true Tory mentality is that of the one nation nationalist. It cannot be repeated too often that the free market, internationalist creed is the antithesis of conservatism.

Of course, the manifesto described above would not appeal in every respect to ever member of the “disenfranchised majority”. But its general political slant would be palatable to that majority and there would be sufficient within the detail to allow any individual who is currently disenchanted with politics to feel that there were a decent number of important policies for which he or she could happily vote. That is the best any voter can expect in a representative democracy.

Most importantly, the electorate as a whole would be able to see that there was a clear choice between our existing politics and such a manifesto. People could believe again that voting might actually change things.